BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 05.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

S.R.Bindulekha ...Petitioner

vs.

1.The State of Tamilnadu,

Rep. by its Secretary,

School Education Department,

Fort.St.George,

Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Joint Director, (Employee Division),

Department of School Education,

College Road,

Chennai - 600 006.

3.The Chief Educational Officer,

Kanyakumari District,

Kanyakumari.

4.The Accountant General,

Office of the Principal Accountant General,

No.361, Anna Salai,

Chennai - 18.

5.The Chairman,

Teacher's Recruitment Board,

Sambath Building,

College Road,

Chennai - 6. ...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.024619/R1/E3/2019, dated 26.08.2019 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the list of Teachers brought under the General Profit Fund Scheme by extending all benefits of Pension under the said Pension Scheme.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Jeyamohan For Respondents : Mr.J.Ashok, Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3 for Mr.P.Gunasekaran Standing Counsel for R4 Mr.T.Amjad Khan, Standing Counsel for R5

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.024619/R1/E3/2019, dated 26.08.2019, in and by which, the petitioner's claim to be brought under the old pension scheme was rejected.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner participated in the examination conducted by the fifth respondent for the post of Block Resource Teacher. The petitioner passed the examination with merit list rank of 17. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner was called for certificate verification and she participated in the certificate verification on 01.06.2002. However, in the final list, the petitioner's name did not find place since her mother toungue was Malayalam. In this regard, the petitioner filed O.A.No.4171 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, wherein, the Tribunal has passed an order on 28.02.2003, by and in which, the Recruitment body was directed to select the petitioner and give her posting. In pursuance thereof, appointment order was issued to the petitioner on 31.03.2003 and the petitioner joined in the post on 04.04.2003 as a Block Resource Teacher. Now the respondents have not subscribed the petitioner to the old pension scheme and subscribed her to the new contributory pension scheme in pursuance of G.O.(Ms)No.430, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 06.08.2004. Hence, the present petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that according to the above Government Order, the crucial date is only the date of recruitment and in the present case, the petitioner was recruited on

31.03.2003. Therefore, the petitioner is eligible to be considered for the old pension scheme. In support of his contentions, he relied upon (i) the Judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.3308 of 2007 and Writ Appeal arising against that petition in W.A.(MD)No.370 of 2018 and (ii) the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1006 of 2019 and the subsequent Government Order in G.O.(Ms)No.15, School Education Department, dated 13.01.2025, complying the direction given in that Writ Petition.

5. The said contentions were totally objected by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for R4, who would contend that according to proviso to Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, the persons who are appointed on or after 01.04.2003 are not eligible to be subscribed under old pension scheme and the petitioner has joined the services on 04.04.2003 i.e., after the cut of date fixed in the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. He also relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of the Principal Seat of this Court in W.P.Nos.9027 & 9035 of 2019, dated 1